comparative costs of converting shelf list records to machine readable form
Clicks: 5
ID: 168455
1968
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
1.2
/100
5 views
4 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #55 of 62 articles by views in research papers in education
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
A study at Michigan State University Library compared the costs of three different methods of conversion: keypunching, paper-tape typewriting, and optical scanning by a service bureau. The record converted included call number, copy number, first 39 letters of the author's name, first 43 letters of the title, and date of publication. Source documents were all of the shelf list cards at the Library. The end products were a master book tape of the library collections and a machine readable book card for each volume to be used in an automated circulation system.
| Reference Key |
chapin1968informationcomparative
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Richard E. Chapin;Dale H. Pretzer |
| Journal | research papers in education |
| Year | 1968 |
| DOI |
10.6017/ital.v1i1.2925
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.